Hog deaths in Virginia

[Catchawave]

I had posted this in LBN the other day, but the mod moved it to the Virginia Forum! The good news is, it won't drop as fast as in GD....LOL. It probably should have been put here because this would not have made MSM if it were not for PETA pushing for the investigation!

********

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=183x1527

http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=87...


The Virginian-Pilot
© June 10, 2005


The state Office of Veterinary Services will coordinate an informal investigation into the heat-related deaths of 513 pigs this week at a Sussex County farm owned by a Smithfield Foods subsidiary, officials said Thursday .

Officials believe the deaths Monday resulted from a thunderstorm that knocked out power providing ventilation to the Murphy-Brown pig facility near the Sussex Courthouse .

But, after a complaint from PETA, the animal-rights group based in Norfolk, the state wants to make sure “no other extenuating circumstances” contributed to the deaths, such as improper animal care or poor facility conditions, said Elaine Lidholm , a spokeswoman for the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services .

“If we determine that it was an act of God with the storm, we’d recommend things end there,” Lidholm said. “We’d know it would be a huge loss to the farmer, but not a case of animal cruelty,” as PETA has insinuated.

...more...

[shockra]

1. More bad news for pigs.

June 15, 2005 latimes.com : Business

CALIFORNIA
Pork Farm Wins Suit Dismissal
By Erica Williams, Times Staff Writer

A Los Angeles judge Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit brought by an animal rights group that accused a Central Valley farm of mistreating pregnant pigs, saying a ballot measure passed last year rendered the case invalid.

Farm Sanctuary, which operates a shelter for rescued farm animals in Orland, Calif., sought to force Corcpork Inc. of Corcoran to stop housing its 9,000 pregnant sows in individual metal stalls barely larger than the pigs. The group hoped to apply a provision of the state's anti-cruelty statute, which makes it a misdemeanor to deprive an animal confined in an enclosed space of "an adequate exercise area."

But Superior Court Judge Joanne O'Donnell said the New York-based group was barred from suing the farm by Proposition 64, which set curbs on lawsuits against businesses. The measure contained no exception for pending cases, she said.

"We said from the outset we didn't believe the law allowed for this type of case, and the judge agreed," Corcpork spokesman Steve Duchesne said.

Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary, said it was considering an appeal. "We do believe it's clear that the animals at Corcpork are not allowed to exercise, and that is a clear violation of California law," he said.

In the months since Proposition 64 passed, businesses have attempted to use it to scuttle pending lawsuits targeting corporate behavior. The measure bans private parties from suing a business unless they were harmed personally and financially by the alleged misconduct.

Activists have argued that Proposition 64 was meant to block future suits and shouldn't be applied retroactively.

Courts have issued conflicting opinions on the matter, and the California Supreme Court said in April that it would review several cases in an effort to resolve the question.

Taimie Bryant, who teaches a course in animal protection law at UCLA School of Law, expressed concern that broad rulings such as O'Donnell's could bar lawsuits in the public interest such as those involving civil rights and worker safety laws — something voters may not have intended.

"This isn't just a case about the gestation crates ," Bryant said. "This is a case about … the ability of the public to bring forward litigation in the public interest against business practices that cause harm to public values."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pork15jun15,1,5728062.story?coll=la-headlines-business